WhatsApp Backs Apple in Legal Fight Against UK Encryption Demands

[MacRumors]

WhatsApp plans to support Apple in its ongoing legal battle with the UK Home Office over user data privacy, the messaging platform's boss Will Cathcart has told the BBC.

The Meta-owned service warned that the case "could set a dangerous precedent" by encouraging other governments to demand access to encrypted communications.

Apple launched legal action after receiving a secret government notice earlier this year demanding backdoor access to encrypted iCloud data worldwide. The UK used its Investigatory Powers Act to require Apple to compromise its Advanced Data Protection feature, which encrypts user photos, notes, messages, and device backups.

Rather than comply, Apple pulled the encryption feature from UK users entirely in February.

"WhatsApp would challenge any law or government request that seeks to weaken the encryption of our services," Cathcart said. The company vowed to continue defending users' "right to a private conversation online."

The encryption controversy has drawn criticism from American politicians, with some calling it a "dangerous attack on US cybersecurity." Tulsi Gabbard, director of US National Intelligence, described the UK's demands as an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy.

A UK court rejected the government's attempt to keep details of Apple's legal challenge secret. Judges ruled that conducting hearings entirely in private would be "truly extraordinary."

The Home Office has defended its position, saying the government's "first priority" is keeping people safe while protecting privacy. Officials argue the powers help investigate serious crimes including terrorism and child abuse.

Apple maintains that creating backdoors would inevitably compromise security for all users, making them vulnerable to malicious actors.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: WhatsApp Backs Apple in Legal Fight Against UK Encryption Demands

 

[Joseph C]

Well done, Meta, on this one.

 

[thefrost]

WhatsApp defending Apple? Who would have thought?

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.

 

[Joseph C]

If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.

"Ultimately, arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

 

[Moonjumper]

If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.

Because it requires a backdoor. Once there is a backdoor, others will find a way in, such as criminals.

 

[danny842003]

Does anyone else see the words US politicians and just wish for our new Chinese overlords to have done with it all.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

"Ultimately, arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

So if a terrorist who caused untold personal trauma was apprehended yet no-one was able to access said person's phone due to the above encryption, you would say that's fine because their privacy is more important than supporting the case?

 

[bob24]

If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this?

Literally the sentence every single totalitarian regime in the world has used throughout history to justify mass and intrusive surveillance of its population.

I am not British myself, but I find it truly sad that some people can resort to the same justification of mass surveillance without realising what the eventual implications are, in the country of George Orwell who saw and brilliantly exposed those issues decades ago.

 

[cjsuk]

If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.

Well say you're gay. Then they record all your conversations, because they can. Then they make being gay illegal. Then you're ****ed. That's why.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Literally the sentence every single totalitarian regime in the world has used in history to justify mass surveillance of its population.

That doesn't really answer the question. If a government official turns up in a pretend Handy-Man van, what they actually going to find? Me sitting on the couch with a beer?

 

[cjsuk]

That doesn't really answer the question. If a government official turns up in a pretend Handy-Man van, what they actually going to find? Me sitting on the couch with a beer?

They will find whatever they want to find.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

They will find whatever they want to find.

Precisely.

 

[Joseph C]

So if a terrorist who caused untold personal trauma was apprehended yet no-one was able to access said person's phone due to the above encryption, you would say that's fine because their privacy is more important than supporting the case?

Do we know of any terrorists who escaped jail or punishment because their phone was encrypted?

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Do we know of any terrorists who escaped jail or punishment because their phone was encrypted?

You're making assumptions. The evidence on said phone would support the case and ultimately change how the person was charged.

 

[bluecoast]

I still think an on device ML/genAi process to silently block certain types of content & which never phones home (or to the uk home office) is the way to solve this.

Aware though that this method is open to abuse by politicians though ie ‘make sure you silently remove anything that goes against us’.

 

[User 6502]

If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.

If there is a back door it’s only a matter of time before someone finds the way to use it other than the government. I stand with Apple and meta on this one: there should be no backdoor at all.

 

[SPUY767]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

[Dr McKay]

If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.

"If you have nothing to say why would you get so worked up about the government taking away freedom of speech?"

 

[SpaceMagic]

Well say you're gay. Then they record all your conversations, because they can. Then they make being gay illegal. Then you're ****ed. That's why.

Thank you

 

[rmariboe]

If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.

So thought the German Jews in the 1920s when their religious views were registered. A decade later, being Jewish was punishable by death.

Especially with what we’re seeing in the states currently, this topic should not be up for debate 😬

Learn from history - or be bound to repeat it!

 

[CapitalIdea]

People making excuses for the UK government attempting this (and other things like this in the USA) need to sit down and watch or rewatch V for Vendetta.

 

[rmariboe]

So if a terrorist who caused untold personal trauma was apprehended yet no-one was able to access said person's phone due to the above encryption, you would say that's fine because their privacy is more important than supporting the case?

That’s what we call a straw man argument. You are no longer debating the topic but derailing the conversation by throwing in a similar sounding but different statement that others will likely not defend.

 

[cjsuk]

So if a terrorist who caused untold personal trauma was apprehended yet no-one was able to access said person's phone due to the above encryption, you would say that's fine because their privacy is more important than supporting the case?

Yep.

That comes at little social cost compared to dragnet surveillance.

 

[SpaceMagic]

To people who think "I have nothing to hide, so why is this a problem", just remember that the following things were once illegal, and still are in several countries worldwide:

• interracial marriage
• same sex relationships
• protest
• cohabitation without marriage
• alcohol
• tattoos
• dancing
• accessing foreign media
• forming unions
• women working certain professions
• cannabis
• caffeine
• birth control
• travel without a man
• teaching about evolution
• reading certain books
• speaking certain languages
• and many many more

So you may think you have nothing to hide today, but who knows what you'll have to hide tomorrow.

We all want certain crimes to be pursued and prosecuted (terrorism / abuse of minors / etc), but there are a multitude of other ways these acts can be uncovered or, better, prevented (let's start with educational and health inequality, a rethinking of the way we design housing and communities, financial inequalities...). Do we want the rights of all to be eroded due to the acts (albeit sometimes heinous) of very, very few.